mceer-seismic design and retrofit of bridges...
TRANSCRIPT
International Bridge Conference 2006
MCEER-Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges“Recommended AASHTO LRFD
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of New Highway Bridges”(NCHRP 20-7/Task 193)
Roy A. Imbsen, P.E., D.Engr.Tuesday, June 13, 2006
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 2
Presentation Topics ♦Background leading up to the work completed
to date on the Guidelines♦Excerpts selected from the Guidelines♦Planned AASHTO T-3 Committee activities for
adoption in 2007 as a Guideline♦Current status♦Planned activities post-adoption♦Observations♦Conclusions
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 3
Stakeholders Table
George Lee, MCEER, ChairRick Land, T-3 ChairGeoff Martin, MCEERJoe Penzien, HSRC, EQ V-teamJohn Kulicki, HSRCLes Youd, BYUJoe Wang, Parsons, EQ V-teamLucero Mesa, SCDOT V-team
Rick Land, CA ChairHarry Capers, NJ, Co-chairRalph Anderson, ILJerry Weigel, WAEd Wasserman, TNPaul Liles, GA
Roy Imbsen, IAIRoger Borcherdt, USGSPo Lam, EMIE. V. Leyendecker, USGS Lee Marsh, Berger/AbamRandy Cannon, formerly SCDOT
Technical Review Panel(to be invited)
T-3 Working GroupIAI Team(as needed)
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 4
Current T-3 Working Group
♦Rick Land, CA (Past chair)♦Harry Capers, NJ (Co-chair)♦Richard Pratt, AK (Current chair)♦Ralph Anderson, IL♦Jerry Weigel, WA♦Ed Wasserman, TN♦Paul Liles, GA♦Kevin Thompson, CA
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 5
Overall T-3 Project Objectives
♦Assist T-3 Committee in developing a LRFD Seismic Design Specification using available specifications and current research findings
♦Develop a specification that is user friendly and implemental into production design
♦Complete six tasks specifically defined by the AASHTO T-3 Committee, which were based on the NCHRP 12-49 review comments
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 6
Background-Task 6 Report
♦ Review Reference Documents♦ Finalize Seismic Hazard Level♦ Expand the Extent of the No-Analysis Zone♦ Select the Most Appropriate Design Procedure for
Steel♦ Recommend Liquefaction Design Procedure♦ Letter Reports for Tasks 1-5 (Ref. NCHRP 20-07/Task
193 Task 6 Report for Updating “Recommended LRFD Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges” Imbsen & Associates, Inc., of TRC )
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 7
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 8
Appendices♦ Appendix A – Acceleration Time Histories
♦ Appendix B – Provisions for Site Characterizations♦ Appendix C – Guideline for Modeling of
Footings♦ Appendix D – Provisions for Collateral Seismic
Hazards♦ Appendix E – Liquefaction Effects and Associated
Hazards♦ Appendix F – Load and Resistance Factor Design
for Single-Angle Members
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 9
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 10
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Backgroung Task 2 - Seismic Hazard Level
♦ Design against the Effects Ground Shaking Hazard♦ Selection of a Return Period for Design less than 2500 Years♦ Inclusion of the USGS 2002 Update of the National Seismic
Hazard Maps♦ Effects of Near Field and Fault Rupture to be addressed in a
following Task♦ Displacement Based Approach with both Design Spectral
Acceleration and corresponding Displacement Spectra provided♦ Hazard Map under the control of AASHTO with each State
having the option to Modify or Update their own State Hazard using the most recent Seismological Studies
Recommended approach to addressing the seismic hazard:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 11
LRFD Guidelines (1.1)-Background Task 2-Seismic Hazard
♦ NEHRP 1997 Seismic Hazard Practice♦ Caltrans Seismic Hazard Practice♦ NYCDOT and NYSDOT Seismic Hazard Practice♦ NCHRP 12-49 Seismic Hazard Practice♦ SCDOT Seismic Hazard Practice♦ Site-Specific Hazard Analyses Conducted for Critical
Bridges
Seismic Hazard Practice can be best illustrated in looking at the following sources:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 12
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Background Seismic Hazard for Normal Bridges
♦ Selection of a lower return period for Design is made such that Collapse Prevention is not compromised when considering large historical earthquakes.
♦ A reduction can be achieved by taking advantage of sources of conservatism not explicitly taken into account in current design procedures.
♦ The sources of conservatism are becoming more obvious based on recent findings from both observations of earthquake damage and experimental data.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 13
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Background Task 2-Sources of Conservatism
Sou rce of Conservatism Safe ty Factor
Computa t iona l vs. Exper imenta l Displacement Capacity of Components
1.3
Effect ive Damping 1.2 to 1.5 Dynamic Effect (i.e., st ra in ra te effect ) 1.2 Pushover Techniques Governed by F irst Plast ic Hinge to Reach Ult imate Capacity
1.2 to 1.5
Out of Phase Displacement a t Hinge Sea t Addressed in Task 3
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 14
Idealized Load – Deflection Curve
Considered in Design
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 15
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 16
LRFD Guidelines (1.1)-Background Seismic Hazard-Normal Bridges
♦ An appropriate method to design adequate seat width(s) considering out of phase motion.
♦ An appropriate method to design the ductile substructure components without undue conservatism
Two distinctly different aspects of the design process need to be provided:
These two aspects are embedded with different levels of conservatism that need to be calibrated against the single level of hazard considered in the design process.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 17
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-BackgroundTask 3-Expand the No-Analysis Zone♦ At a minimum, maintain the number of bridges under the
“Seismic Demand Analysis” by comparing Proposed Guidelines to AASHTO Division I-A.
♦ Develop implicit procedures that can be used reduce the number of bridges where “Seismic Capacity Analysis” needs to be performed, This objective is accomplished by identifying a threshold where an implicit procedures can be used (Drift Criteria, Column Shear Criteria).
♦ Identify threshold where “Capacity Design” shall be used. This objective is achieved in conjunction with the “Seismic Capacity Analysis” requirements.
P − Δ
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 18
Range of Applicability of “Seismic Demand Analysis”
AASHTO Division 1-A PGA > 9%
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 19
Range of Applicability of “Seismic Demand Analysis”
Region of Required for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class B
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 20
Range of Applicability of “Seismic Demand Analysis”
Region of Required for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class D
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 21
Range of Applicability of “Seismic Capacity Analysis”
Region of Required Maximum for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class B
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 22
Range of Applicability of “Seismic Capacity Analysis”
Region of Required Maximum for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class D
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 23
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Backround Task 3-Proposed Range of Analysis
♦ SD1 is a good representation of the difference in regional demands (I.e., SD1 is considerably lower in the Eastern U.S.)
♦ The choice of high frequency spectral indicator as recommended in NCHRP 12-49 penalizes the Eastern U.S. for no credible justification considering that damage to bridges is associated with low frequency range of bridge period.
♦ The choice of SD1 fits well with the adopted displacement approach for bridges considering that ductility is taken into account when assessing the capacity.
Based on Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 second period, SD1, considering:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 24
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Backround Task 3-Proposed Range of Analysis
Site Class Spectrum
Section 3.2.3
SD1
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 25
LRFD Guidelines(1.1) Task 4 Select The Most Appropriate Design
Procedure for Steel
The objective of this task is to select the most appropriate design procedure (i.e., displacement or force based) for a bridge with a steel superstructure and to examine both the NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT using a trial design.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 26
LRFD Guidelines(1.1) Task 4 Select The Most Appropriate Design
Procedure for Steel Design-Examples♦ Two design examples were selected from the
work done by Itani and Sedarat in 2000 entitled “Seismic Analysis and Design of the AISI LRFD Design Examples of Steel Highway Bridges”.
♦ This effort was a continuation to the 1996 AISI published Vol. II Chapter 1B of the Highway Structures, Design Handbook, “Four LRFD Design Examples of Steel Highway Bridges”.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 27
LRFD Guidelines(1.1) Task 4 Select The Most Appropriate Design Procedure for
Steel Design-Examples (con’t)
♦ Identify the performance objective for seismic design of steel girder structures.
♦ Identify the specifications utilized for proper completion of the design process.
The main two purposes in examining this report are to:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 28
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Background Task 4-Select The Most Appropriate Design Procedure for Steel Design-Example 1
♦ Calculation of lateral load at the end cross-frame.
♦ The design of the top strut.♦ The design of the diagonal member.♦ The design of the bottom strut.
Example 1 is a Simple-Span Composite I Girder. The design process shown in the report includes:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 29
Bridge Cross Section of Example 1
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 30
Example 1 Girder Layout
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 31
Example 1 (con’t)
♦ The end cross-frame is designed for the full seismic force with no reduction of this force assuming a restrained condition of the bridge (i.e., shear keys capable of sustaining the full seismic force).
♦ A single angle bracing is used for the diagonal member of the end-cross-frame. As this practice is typical and favored for ease of construction, the design process for a single angle bracing needs to be referenced or included for clarity of use by the bridge engineer.
♦ AISC has a stand alone document on “LRFD Design Specification for Single-Angle Members” that can be included or referenced in the Specifications.
Two important aspects of the design process are identified:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 32
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Background; Task 4-Select The Most Appropriate Design
Procedure for Steel Design Example 2
♦ Calculation of the lateral load at the bent cross-frame.♦ The design of the plate girder connections to the R/C Deck.♦ Design of the top strut.♦ Design of the diagonal member.♦ Design of the bottom strut.♦ Calculation of superstructure lateral capacity.
Example 2 is a Two-Span Cont. Composite I Girder. The design process shown in the report includes:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 33
Elevation Details of Example 2
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 34
Elevation Details of Example 2
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 35
Example 2 (con’t)
♦ The bent cross-frame is designed to ensure column hinging mechanism assuming a restrained condition of the superstructure to the bent.
♦ The load path from the deck to the girders or the top strut is checked.♦ Double angles with stitches are used for the top strut and the diagonal
member due to the higher seismic demand on this bridge location in seismic zone 4.
♦ AISC LRFD Specifications Chapter E applies to compact and non-compact prismatic members subject to axial compression through the centroidal axis. The design process for members with stitches is also included.
Three important aspects of the design process are identified:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 36
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Background; Task 4-Load Path and Performance Criteria
♦ Specifications regarding the load path for a slab-on-girder bridge are examined using SCDOT and NCHRP 12-49 documents.
♦ SCDOT specifications has a general section on load path while NCHRP 12-49 has a section only on “Ductile End-Diaphragm in Slab-on-Girder Bridge.”
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 37
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Background Task 4-Load Path and Performance Criteria
♦ The AISC provisions limit the force reduction factor R to 3 for ordinary bracing that is a part of a seismic resisting system not satisfying the special seismic provisions.
♦ It is proposed to adopt the AISC limit for an R reduction factor of 3.
♦ Special end-diaphragm addressed in NCHRP 12-49 will be considered for bracing system with a reduction factor, R, greater than 3 as stipulated in the AISC provisions.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 38
LRFG Guidelines(1.1)-Background Task 4 Summary
♦ Adopt AISC LRFD Specifications for design of single angle members and members with stitches.
♦ Allow for three types of a bridge structural system as adopted in SCDOT Specifications and stipulated in NCHRP 12-49.
♦ Adopt a force reduction factor of 3 for design of normal end cross-frame (No Special Detailing).
♦ Adopt NCHRP 12-49 for design of “Ductile End-Diaphragm” where a force reduction factor greater than 3 is desired.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 39
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-BackgroundTask 5 Recommend Liquefaction
Design Procedure
The objective of this task is to review applicable recent research and information currently available on liquefaction and to recommend design procedures consistent with the “Displacement Approach” adopted for the proposed specifications.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 40
LRFD Guidelines(1.1)-Proposed Liquefaction Design Requirements
♦ Liquefaction design requirements are applicable to SPC “D”.♦ Liquefaction design requirements are dependent on the mean
magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60] .
♦ If Liquefaction occurs, then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied configurations.
The following list highlights the main proposed liquefaction design requirements:
Design requirements for lateral flow are still debatable and have not reached a consensus worth comfortably adopting.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 41
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN BRIDGETYPE SELECTION AND DESIGN
FOR SERVICE LOADS
APPLICABILITY OFSPECIFICATIONS
SECTION 3.1
TEMPORARYBRIDGE
SECTION 3.6YES
PERFORMANCE CRITERIASECTION 3.2
EARTHQUAKE RESISTING SYSTEMS (ERS)REQUIREMENTS FOR SDC C & D
SECTION 3.3
DETERMINE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUMSECTION 3.4
DETERMINE SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY (SDC)SECTION 3.5
NO
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 42
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart A (cont.)
SDC AYES
NODETERMINE DESIGN FORCESSECTION 4.6
DETERMINE SEAT WIDTHSECTION 4.8.1
FOUNDATION DESIGNSECTION 6.2
DESIGN COMPLETE
SINGLE SPANBRIDGE
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY B, C, DSee Figure 1.3B
SEISMIC DESIGNCATEGORY B, C, AND D
See Figure 1.3C
NO
YES
DETERMINE DESIGN FORCESSECTION 4.5
DETERMINE MINIMUMSEAT WIDTH
SECTION 4.8
DESIGN COMPLETE
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 43
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart B
SDC B
IMPLICIT CAPACITY
DEMAND ANALYSIS
1DC ≤
SDC B DETAILING
COMPLETE
SDC C
DEMAND ANALYSIS
IMPLICIT CAPACITY
1DC ≤
SDC C DETAILING
COMPLETE
CAPACITY DESIGN
SDC D
DEMAND ANALYSIS
PUSHOVER CAPACITYANALYSIS
1DC ≤
SDC D DETAILING
COMPLETE
CAPACITY DESIGN
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
NoNo No
No No
ADJ UST BRIDGECHARACTERISTICS
DEP
END
S O
N A
DJU
STM
ENTS
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 44
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 45
LRFD Guidelines(3.1)-Applicability
♦Design and Construction of New Bridges♦Bridges having Superstructures Consisting of:
– Slab– Beam– Girder– Box Girder
♦Spans less than 500 feet
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 46
LRFD Guidelines(3.2)-Performance Criteria
♦One design level for life safety♦Seismic hazard level for 5% probability of
exceedance in 50 years (i.e.,1000 year return period)
♦Low probability of collapse♦May have significant damage and disruption to
service
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 47
LRFD Guidelines(3.3)-Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS)
♦Required for SDC C and D♦ Must be identifiable within the bridge system♦Shall provide a reliable and uninterrupted load path♦Shall have energy dissipation and/or restraint to
control seismically induced displacements♦Composed of acceptable Earthquake Resisting
Elements (ERE)
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 48
Permissible Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS)
LRFD Guidelines(3.3)
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 49
LRFD Guidelines(3.3)
Permissible Earthquake Resisting Elements
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 50
LRFD Guidelines(3.3)
Permissible Earthquake Resisting
Elements that Require Owner’s
Approval
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 51
LRFD Guidelines(3.4)-Seismic Hazard♦ 5% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years ♦ AASHTO-USGS Technical Assistance Agreement to:
– Provide paper maps– Develop ground motion software
♦ Hazard maps for 50 States and Puerto Rico– Conterminous 48 States-USGS 2002 maps– Hawaii-USGS 1998 maps– Puerto Rico-USGS 2003 maps– Alaska-USGS 2006 maps
♦ Maps for Spectral Accelerations Site Class B– Short period (0.2 sec.)– Long period (1.0 sec.)
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 52
LRFD Guidelines(3.4) Seismic Hazard; 2-Point Method
for Soil Response Spectrum
Construction
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 53
Figure 3.4.1-1 Design
Response Spectrum,
Constructed Using Two-
Point Method
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 54
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 55
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 56
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 57
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 58
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 59
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 60
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 61
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 62
LRFD Guidelines(3.5)-SDC Range of Applicable of Analysis
♦ Seismic Demand Analysis requirement♦ Seismic Capacity Analysis requirement♦ Capacity Design requirement♦ Level of seismic detailing requirement including four
tiers corresponding to SDC A, B, C and D♦ Earthquake Resistant System
Four categories SDC A, B, C and D encompassing requirements for:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 63
LRFD Guidelines(3.5)Table 3-1: Seismic Design Categories
Seismic Design Category(SDC)
Value of 1DS
1DS < 0.15g A
0.15g ≤ 1DS < 0.30g B 0.30g ≤ 1DS < 0.50g C 0.50g ≤ 1DS D
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 64
LRFD Guidelines(3.5) Seismic Design Category (SDC)
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 65
LRFD Guidelines(3.6) Temporary Bridges-Reduction of Seismic Hazard
0.5E T ADTR R R= ∗ ≤
00.20.40.60.8
11.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6Exposure Ratio R
E
Red
uctio
n M
ultip
lier F
acto
r
California
Pacific andIntermountainRegionCentral andEastern USRegion
Temporary Bridges maximum Reduction Factor of 2.5 included in the Specifications
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 66
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 67
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart C
SDC B, C, D
SEISMIC DESIGN PROPORTIONINGAND ARTICULATION
RECOMMENDATIONSSECTION 4.1
g
SDC D
CONSIDER VERTICALGROUND MOTION EFFECTS
SECTION 4.7.2
YES
SELECT HORIZONTAL AXES FORGROUND MOTIONS
SECTION 4.3.1
DAMPING CONSIDERATION,SECTION 4.3.2
SHORT PERIOD STRUCTURESCONSIDERATION
SECTION 4.3.3
NO
DETERMINE ANALYSIS PROCEDURESECTION 4.2
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 68
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)
Flow Chart C (cont.)
DETERMINE SEISMIC DISPLACEMENTDEMANDS
(See Figure1.3E)
COMBINE ORTHOGONAL DISPLACEMENTS(i.e., LOADS CASES 1 & 2)
SECTION 4.4
SDC B or C
YES
NO
SDC B OR C DETERMINE(See Figure 1.3D)
CΔ
MEMBER/COMPONENTPERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
See Figures 1.3F & 1.3G
C DΔ > Δ
SDC D, DETERMINE - PUSHOVERSECTION 4.8
CAPACITY REQUIREMENT
SECTION 4.11.5
P− Δ
GLOBAL STRUCTUREDISPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT
SECTION 4.3
CΔ
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 69
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart D
SDC B or CDETERMINE
SECTION 4.8
CAPACITY
vs.
SECTION 4.11.5
RETURN TO SDC DDETERMINE - PUSHOVER
See Figure 1.3C
NO
YES
CΔ
C DΔ > Δ
CΔ
P− ΔNO
YES
SDC CNO
YES
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 70
LRFD Guidelines(4.1)-
Balanced Stiffness
Recommendation
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 71
LRFD Guidelines(4.2)-Analysis Procedures to Determine Seismic Demands
Seismic Design
Category
Regular Bridges with 2 through 6
Spans
Not Regular Bridges with 2 or
more Spans
A Not required Not required
B, C, or D Use Procedure 1 or 2 Use Procedure 2
Procedure Number
Description Section
1 Equivalent Static 5.4.2 2 Multimodal Spectral 5.4.3 3 Non-linear Time History 5.4.4
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 72
LRFD Guidelines(4.8.3)Drift Capacity for SDC B and C
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Fb/L
Drif
t Cap
acity
(%) Yield (C1)
Spalling (C2)Ductility 4 (C3)Experimental (C4)SPC B (C5)SPC C (C6)
SDC C
SDC B
End of Test
Essentially Elastic
Moderate Damage
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 75
LRFD Guidelines(4.11)-Capacity Design Requirement for SDC C and D
Longitudinal Response of a Concrete Bridge
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 76
of LRFD Guidelines(4.11)-Capacity Design Requirement for SDC C and D
Transverse Response of a Concrete Bridge
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 77
LRFD Guidelines(4.12)Hinge Seat Requirement
♦ Minimum edge distance♦ Other movement attributed to prestress
shortening, creep, shrinkage, and thermal expansion or contraction
♦ Skew effect♦ Relative hinge displacement
The calculation for a hinge seat width involves four components:
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 78
LRFD Guidelines(4.12) Relative Seismic Displacement vs. Period Ratio
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0 0.5 1 1.5
Ratio of Tshort/Tlong
Rat
io o
f Deq
/Dm
ax
Curve 1Curve 2Curve 3Curve 4
♦ Deq for a target ductility of 2 shown as Curve 1
♦ Deq for a target ductility of 4 shown as Curve 2
♦ Caltrans SDC shown as Curve 3
♦ Relative hinge displacement based on (Trocholak is et. Al. 1997) shown as Curve 4
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 79
LRFD Guidelines(4.12) Seat Width Requirements Compared to
NCHRP 12-49 and DIV I-A (H=20ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Bridge Length (ft.)
Seat
Wid
th (i
n.)
Curve 1 SDR 2 NCHRP 12-49Curve 2 SDR 3 NCHRP 12-49Curve 3 SPC B Div 1ACurve 4 SPC C&D Div 1ACurve 5 .15g, 1 secCurve 6 .5g, 1 secCurve 7 .15g, 2 secCurve 8 .50g, 2 sec
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 80
LRFD Guidelines(4.12)Seat Width Requirements Compared to
NCHRP 12-49 and DIV I-A (H=30ft)
05
1015
2025
3035
4045
50
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Bridge Length (ft.)
Sea
t Wid
th (i
n.)
Curve 1 SDR 2 NCHRP 12-49Curve 2 SDR 3 NCHRP 12-49Curve 3 SPC B Div 1ACurve 4 SPC C&D Div 1ACurve 5 .15g, 1 secCurve 6 .5g, 1 secCurve 7 .15g, 2 secCurve 8 .50g, 2 sec
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 81
Seismic Design Flowchart by SDC
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 82
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 83
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart E
DE TE R M INE S E IS M IC DIS P L A C E M E NTDE M A NDS F O R S DC B , C , D
S E L E C T A NA L Y S IS P R O C E DUR E 1S EC TI O N 5.4 .2
S E L E C T A NA L Y S IS P R O C E DUR E 2S EC TI O N 5.4 .3
S E L E C T A NA L Y S IS P R O C E DUR E 3S EC TI O N 5.4 .4
DE F INE B R IDG E E R SS EC TI O N 5.1 .1
S EC TI O N 3.3
NO
Y E S
S A TIS F Y M O DE L ING R E Q UIR E M E NTSS EC TI O N 5.1
S DC C o r D
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 84
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)
Flow Chart E (cont.)EF F E CTIVE SE CTION PROPE RTIE S
SECTION 5.6
SATISF Y MATHEMATICAL MODE L INGRE QUIRE MENTS F OR PROCEDURE 2
SECTION 5.5
AB UTME NT MODE L INGSECTION 5.2
F OUNDATION MODEL INGSECTION 5.3
CONDUCT DEMAND ANAL YSISSECTION 5.1.2
RE TURN TO
COMB INE OTHOG ONALDISPL ACE MENTS
Se e Figure 1.3C
DETERMINE DISPL ACEME NTDEMANDS AL ONG
MEMB E R L OCAL AXIS
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 85
LRFD Guidelines(5.2)-Abutments Design Passive Pressure Zone
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 86
LRFD Guidelines(5.2)-Abutments Characterization of Capacity and Stiffness
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 87
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 88
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)
Flow Chart D (cont.)
SATISF Y SUPPORT REQUIREMENTSSEAT WIDTH
SECTION 4.12
SHEAR KEYSECTION 4.14
F OUNDATION INVESTIGATIONSECTION 6.2
ABUTMENT DESIGNSECTION 6.7
DESIGN COMPLETE
SPREAD F OOTING DESIGNSECTION 6.3
PILE CAP F OUNDATION DESIGNSECTION 6.4
DRILLED SHAF TSECTION 6.5
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 89
LRFD Guidelines(6.3)-Spread Footing Rocking Analysis
F
Footing Length Footing Width
F
r
T ro fo
T s COLUMN FOOTING COVER
LB
W W W W W
==
Δ = Δ + Δ
= + + +FL a− a
bp
tW
r bC B a P= × ×
Δ
rB
FL
Footing
bp
tW
rH
TΔroΔ foΔ
sW
2 2T F
T
L aHΔ ⎛ ⎞−⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 90
LRFD Guidelines(6.3) Spread Footing
Rocking Analysis
Flow Chart
No
Yes
Establish footing dimensions based on service loading
ORA Minimum footing width of three times column diameter
START
Calculate Δ
Calculate ycolμ = Δ Δ
Calculate 1.2o pM M=
IF
8μ ≤
Calculate lower of and o rP M Mβ = Δ
IF
0.25β ≤No
Yes
Check Strength of FootingShear and Flexure in the
direction of rockingEND
WidenFooting
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 91
LRFD Guidelines(6.8)-Proposed Liquefaction Design Requirements
♦ Liquefaction design requirements are applicable to SPC “D”.♦ Liquefaction design requirements are dependent on the mean
magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60] .
♦ If Liquefaction occurs, then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied configurations.
The following list highlights the main proposed liquefaction design requirements:
Design requirements for lateral flow are still debatable and have not reached a consensus worth comfortably adopting. The IAI geotechnical team is preparing a task to address this topic and complement the effort produced in the NCHRP 12-49 document.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 92
LRFD Guidelines(6.8) Liquefaction Design Requirements
♦ The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.5.
♦ The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.7 and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60] is greater than 20.
An evaluation of the potential for and consequences of liquefaction within near surface soil shall be made in accordance with the following requirements:Liquefaction is required for a bridge in SDC D unless one of thefollowing conditions is met:
Procedures given in Appendix D of NCHRP 12-49 and adopted from California DMG Special Publication 117 shall be used to evaluate the potential for liquefaction.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 93
LRFE Guidelines(6.8)
Typical Example
of
Two Column Bent
Supported
On
Shafts
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 94
LRFD Guidelines(6.8)Moment-Demand vs.
Capacity for Shaft with:(i) no liquefaction
(ii)with liquefaction
•Note: moment demand distribution is dependent on the geotechnical properties of the surrounding soil
Liq
uefa
ctio
n
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 95
LRFD Guidelines(6.8)Liquefaction Design Requirements
♦ The Designer shall cover explicit detailing of plastic hinging zones for both cases mentioned above since it is likely that locations of plastic hinges for the Liquefied Configuration are different than locations of plastic hinges for the Non-Liquefied Configuration.
♦ Design requirements of SPC “D” including shear reinforcement shall be met for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied Configuration.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 96
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 97
LRFD Guidelines
(1.3)Flow
Chart F
TY PE 1
DUCTILE SUBSTRUCTURE
ESSENTIALLY ELASTICSUPERSTRUCTURE
TYPE 1
SATISFY MEMBER DUCTILITYREQUIREMENTS FOR SDC D
SECTION 4.9
DETERMINE FLEXURE ANDSHEAR DEMANDS
SECTION 8.3
SATISFY REQUIREMENTS FORCAPACITY PROTECTED MEMBERS
FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.9
SATISFY REQUIREMENTS FORDUCTILE MEMBERS DESIGN
FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.7
SATISFY LONGITUDINAL ANDLATERAL REINFORCEMENT
REQUIREMENTSSECTION 8.8
TY PE 1*
DUCTILE MOMENT RESISTINGFRAMES AND SINGLE COLUMNSTRUCTURES FOR SDC C AND D
COLUMN REQUIREMNTSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.5.1
BEAM REQUIREMNTSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.5.2
PANEL ZONES AND CONNECTIONSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.5.3
TY PE 1**
CONCRETE FILLED STEEL PIPESFOR SDC C AND D
COMBINED AXIAL COMPRESSIONAND FLEXURE
SECTION 7.6.1
FLEXURAL STRENGTH
SECTION 7.6.2
BEAMS AND CONNECTIONS
SECTION 7.6.3
Note:
1) Type 1 considers concrete substructure
2) Type 1* considers steel substructure
3) Type 1** considers concrete filled steel pipes substructure
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 98
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart F
(cont.)
SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN FORLONGITUDINAL DIRECTION
FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.10
SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN FORTRANSVERSE DIRECTION
INTEGRAL BENT CAPSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.11
NON-INTEGRAL BENT CAPFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.12
SUPERSTRUCTURE J OINT DESIGNFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.13
COLUMN FLARES FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.14
COLUMN SHEAR KEY DESIGNFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.15
CONCRETE PILESFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.16
SATISFY SUPPORT SEAT WIDTHREQUIREMENTS
See Figure 1.3D
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 99
LRFD Guidelines
(1.3)Flow
Chart G
TYPE 2 & 3
ELASTIC SUPERSTRUCTUREELASTIC SUBSTRUCTURE
FUSING MECHANISM ATINTERFACE BETWEENSUPERSTRUCTURE ANDSUBSTRUCTURE
SECTION 7.2
ISOLATION DEVICES
SECTION 7.8
FIXED AND EXPANSION BEARINGSSECTION 7.9
ESSENTIALLY ELASTICSUBSTRUCTURE
DUCTILE STEELSUPERSTRUCTURE
SATISFY SUPPORT SEAT WIDTHREQUIREMENTS
See Figure 1.3D
USE REDUCTION FACTORSTABLE 7.2
SATISFY MEMBER REQUIREMENTSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.4
SATISFY CONNECTIONREQUIREMENTS FOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.7
SATISFY BEARING REQUIREMENTSSECTION 7.9
Note: Type 2 and Type 3 considers concrete or steel substructure
TYPE 2 TYPE 3
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 100
LRFD Guidelines(7.1)-GeneralLoad Path and Performance Criteria
♦ A concrete deck that can provide horizontal diaphragm action, or
♦ A horizontal bracing system in the plane of the top flange
Unless a more refined analysis is made, an approximate load path shall be assumed as follows:The following requirements apply to bridges with either:
The seismic loads in the deck shall be assumed to be transmitted directly to the bearings through end diaphragms or cross-frame.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 101
LRFD Guidelines(7.1)-General Seismic Load Path and Affected Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 102
LRFD Guidelines(7.2) Performance Criteria
♦ Type 1 – Design a ductile substructure with an essentially elastic superstructure.
♦ Type 2 – Design an essentially elastic substructure with a ductile superstructure.
♦ Type 3 – Design an elastic superstructure and substructure with a fusing mechanism at the interface between the superstructure and the substructure.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 103
LRFD Guidelines(7.2)Performance Criteria
♦ For Type 3 choice, the designer shall assess the overstrength capacity for the fusing interface including shear keys and bearings, then design for an essentially elastic superstructure and substructure.
♦ The minimum overstrength lateral design force shall be calculated using an acceleration of 0.4 g or the elastic seismic force whichever is smaller.
♦ If isolation devices are used, the superstructure shall be designed as essentially elastic.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 104
Table of Contents
♦ 1. Introduction♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions♦ 3. General Requirements♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures♦ 6. Foundation and Abutment Design Requirements♦ 7. Structural Steel Components♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 105
LRFD Guidelines
(1.3)Flow
Chart F
TY PE 1
DUCTILE SUBSTRUCTURE
ESSENTIALLY ELASTICSUPERSTRUCTURE
TYPE 1
SATISFY MEMBER DUCTILITYREQUIREMENTS FOR SDC D
SECTION 4.9
DETERMINE FLEXURE ANDSHEAR DEMANDS
SECTION 8.3
SATISFY REQUIREMENTS FORCAPACITY PROTECTED MEMBERS
FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.9
SATISFY REQUIREMENTS FORDUCTILE MEMBERS DESIGN
FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.7
SATISFY LONGITUDINAL ANDLATERAL REINFORCEMENT
REQUIREMENTSSECTION 8.8
TY PE 1*
DUCTILE MOMENT RESISTINGFRAMES AND SINGLE COLUMNSTRUCTURES FOR SDC C AND D
COLUMN REQUIREMNTSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.5.1
BEAM REQUIREMNTSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.5.2
PANEL ZONES AND CONNECTIONSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 7.5.3
TY PE 1**
CONCRETE FILLED STEEL PIPESFOR SDC C AND D
COMBINED AXIAL COMPRESSIONAND FLEXURE
SECTION 7.6.1
FLEXURAL STRENGTH
SECTION 7.6.2
BEAMS AND CONNECTIONS
SECTION 7.6.3
Note:
1) Type 1 considers concrete substructure
2) Type 1* considers steel substructure
3) Type 1** considers concrete filled steel pipes substructure
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 106
LRFD Guidelines(1.3)Flow Chart F
(cont.)
SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN FORLONGITUDINAL DIRECTION
FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.10
SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN FORTRANSVERSE DIRECTION
INTEGRAL BENT CAPSFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.11
NON-INTEGRAL BENT CAPFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.12
SUPERSTRUCTURE J OINT DESIGNFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.13
COLUMN FLARES FOR SDC C AND DSECTION 8.14
COLUMN SHEAR KEY DESIGNFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.15
CONCRETE PILESFOR SDC C AND D
SECTION 8.16
SATISFY SUPPORT SEAT WIDTHREQUIREMENTS
See Figure 1.3D
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 107
Assist T-3 to Develop a LRFD Seismic Design Specification
♦Current LRFD Specification is a Performance Based Specification
♦Proposed Seismic Design Guideline uses a Displacement Based Approach which is a Performance Based Approach
♦A Force Based Approach (i.e., Division 1-A) is a Prescriptive Specification and not consistent with the LRFD Specification
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 108
Observations-Seismic Design of Bridges for Global Deformability
♦ A bridge should deform in a manner that will not lead to collapse or result in any element going beyond its limit state (i.e., be a weak link).
♦ Select a seismic design strategy consisting of:– Ductile components– Capacity protected components– Isolation, etc
♦ Confirm the selected seismic design strategy and the global deformability by evaluating the demands and capacities.
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 109
Overall T-3 Project Objectives
♦Assist T-3 Committee in developing a LRFD Seismic Design Specification using available specifications and current research findings
♦Develop a specification that is user friendly and implemental into production design
♦Complete six tasks specifically defined by the AASHTO T-3 Committee, which were based on the NCHRP 12-49 review comments
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 110
Observations
♦ Similar specifications are being used for both new design and retrofitting
♦ State and local agencies are using similar specifications♦ This approach is transparent and easy to apply to other
performance levels♦ Higher level of confidence that performance objectives
are verified♦ Innovative and promotes “informed intuition”
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 111
Conclusions & Planned Activities
♦Guidelines are User Friendly & can be Implemented
♦Specifications and Commentary should be Tested with Example Bridges
♦Develop Workshop Materials♦Present Pilot workshops♦Add Sections as recommended in the Comments
International Bridge Conference 2006 Roy Imbsen 112
LRFD Guidelines(8.6) Column Shear Requirement for SDC B, C, and D
♦ The force obtained from an elastic linear analysis♦ The force, Vo, corresponding to plastic hinging of the
column including an overstrength factor
The shear demand for a column, Vd, in SDC B shall be determined based on the lesser of:
The shear demand for a column, Vd, in SDC C or D shall be determined based on the force, Vo, corresponding to plastic hinging of the column including an overstrength factor.